RAMRACHHYA SINGH Vs. DAMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit brought by a person claiming to be a tenure-holder for arrears of rent payable by raiyats holding laud in the tenure, the latter objected that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 11, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, because the plaintiffs names had not been registered in the office of the superior landlord as required by that section. This question was decided by the trial Court as a preliminary issue with the consent of the parties and the Court held that as the plaintiffs had acquired a title to the estate by adverse possession, Section 11 of the Act was inapplicable. Having decided this issue the Court was about to proceed with the trial of the suit but the defendants preferred what purported to be an appeal against the decision to the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was heard and decided in the plaintiffs favour, the Deputy Commissioner holding that registration of their names was necessary. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, before whom in the meantime by the order of the Deputy Commissioner the further hearing of the suit had been stayed, dismissed the suit in conformity with the appellate Court's order. This second appeal by the plaintiffs is against the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) The first point taken on behalf of the appellants is that the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner was made without jurisdiction as no appeal lay to him from an order passed by the trial Court on a preliminary issue which did not amount to a decree. This contention, in my opinion, is correct. No appeal lay from the decision of the Deputy Collector as from a decree for it did not, so far as the Court that made it was concerned, conclusively determine the rights of the parties with regard to any of the matters in controversy in the suit. Only one issue has been decided and it remained to be decided whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for rent. The position would of course have been different if the Deputy Collector bad decided the issue against the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs would then have had a [right of appeal. The appeal was apparently taken by the Deputy Commissioner to be from an order; but I do not find any provision in the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act that permits an appeal from an order of that kind. The hearing of a suit cannot be interrupted in order to enable a party to it to obtain a decision of an appellate Court as to whether a particular issue has been correctly decided. Section 215 of the Act provides that no judgment of a Deputy Commissioner (which term includes a Deputy Collector empowered to try rent suits) in any suit and no order of a Deputy Commissioner passed in any suit relating to the trial thereof ... shall be open to revision or appeal otherwise than as expressly provided in the Act. The appeal it must be supposed, purported to be under Sub-section (2) of Section 218. But that section allows an appeal only where the suit had been tried and decided. In the present case only one issue bad been decided. This second appeal may be taken to be an application for revision and in exercise of the Court's powers of revision I set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner allowing the appeal and the order of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector dismissing the suit. The hearing of the suit on the other issues will now proceed. If the suit is decreed by the trial Court, it will of course be open to the defendants to appeal on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 11, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The parties will bear their own costs of this Court and of the Court of the Deputy Commissioner.